Love vs Tyranny

reply to post by NOTurTypical

First let me ask.. Was Alexander the Great a real historical person? (First century would be "contemporary ", Jesus died in 32 AD)

Why first? Provide the contemporary sources and links, and then I'll answer your question.

reply to post by windword

Seems all sects of Judaism needed correction from their interpretation of corrupted Torah, that Jesus attempting to restore to it's correct state.

I certainly agree there, and the Essene community was the wackiest of the lot. They were Judaism's version of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

First let me ask.. Was Alexander the Great a real historical person? (First century would be "contemporary ", Jesus died in 32 AD)

Why first? Provide the contemporary sources and links, and then I'll answer your question.

No. I'm curious if you apply your standards equally to all historical figures or if you're hypocritical.

Was Alexander the Great a real historical figure, yes or no?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You can't cite contemporary sources. Just admit it.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well, they may have been wacky by your standards, but the Pharisees and Sadducee were wicked by Jesus' standards.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

As previously discussed in this thread, there is very good Biblical reason to believe that the God that Jesus introduced was not Yahweh. His god was Abba. Jesus rejected the tyranny of the Old Testament God.

WHAT????

Yahshua means "YHWH" saves and He referred to the temple dedicated to YHWH as His Father's house!

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You can't cite contemporary sources. Just admit it.

Sure I can, you'll notice I said " first". If I'm dealing with a hypocrite there won't be any point in mentioning them though.

So, first.. was ATG a real historical figure, yes or no?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Well, they may have been wacky by your standards, but the Pharisees and Sadducee were wicked by Jesus' standards.

I agree again.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I'm not an expert, or even a student of the history of military and governmental accomplishments of Alexander the Great, so I'm not the one to ask.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The original Hebrew-Aramaic name of Jesus is yeshu‘a, which is short for yehōshu‘a (Joshua), just as Mike is short for Michael. The name yeshu‘a occurs 27 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, primarily referring to the high priest after the Babylonian exile, called both yehōshu‘a (see, e.g., Zechariah 3:3) and, more frequently, yeshu‘a (see, e.g., Ezra 3:2). So, Yeshua’s name was not unusual; in fact, as many as five different men had that name in the Old Testament. And this is how that name came to be “Jesus” in English: Simply stated, this is the etymological history of the name Jesus: Hebrew/Aramaic yeshu‘a became Greek Iēsous, then Latin Iesus, passing into German and then, ultimately, into English, as Jesus.

Why then do some people refer to Jesus as Yahshua? There is absolutely no support for this pronunciation—none at all—and I say this as someone holding a Ph.D. in Semitic languages. My educated guess is that some zealous but linguistically ignorant people thought that Yahweh’s name must have been a more overt part of our Savior’s name, hence YAHshua rather than Yeshua—but again, there is no support of any kind for this theory.
askdrbrown.org... eally-a-pagan-corruption-of-the-name-zeus

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I'm not an expert, or even a student of the history of military and governmental accomplishments of Alexander the Great, so I'm not the one to ask.

Let me explain my reason for asking.

The first recorded mention of Alexander the Great was 400 years after his death by the Roman historian Pleutarch. Yet NO ONE denies that ATG was a real historical figure. Therefore this demand for "contemporary only!!!" Isn't consistent with other major historical figures whatsoever. Not mention, historians generally document history, not contemporary goings on. That's why they're called historians and not journalists.

reply to post by windword


Lol. "Yahshua" is Aramaic. "Yeshua" is Hebrew.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So, then you have no contemporary citation that proves the existence of the biblical Jesus. I thought not.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

and I say this as someone holding a Ph.D. in Semitic languages. My educated guess is that some zealous but linguistically ignorant people thought that Yahweh’s name must have been a more overt part of our Savior’s name,

Are you rejecting my source?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The first mention wasn't Plutarch, it was actually Diodorus Siculus from the first century BC. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So, then you have no contemporary citation that proves the existence of the biblical Jesus. I thought not.

Josephus is one, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are others. James and Jude. Those are all historical documents, Josephus is the greatest historian of the Jews.

But humor me for a sec please. I'm really scratching my head over here. On one hand you're going round and round arguing that Jesus was an Essene, now you're arguing that He never existed as a historical person. Which position do you want to take? Perhaps you should take a brief time out to decide upon and articulate your official position?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The first mention wasn't Plutarch, it was actually Diodorus Siculus from the first century BC. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

It seems I have it wrong on who was the earliest recorded mention. Thanks for clarifying. But my point still remains that the historical record we have of him is centuries after the fact.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

and I say this as someone holding a Ph.D. in Semitic languages. My educated guess is that some zealous but linguistically ignorant people thought that Yahweh’s name must have been a more overt part of our Savior’s name,

Are you rejecting my source?

No. I'm not rejecting "him", I don't know him, never heard of him. But what he is saying isn't accurate. All Hebrew lexicons state otherwise. See Strong's listing for Iesous. But let's forget the Yeshua/Yahshua debate for now, I don't need it to prove my point that His Name means "YHWH saves". Tell me what these authoritative lexicons state is the definition of Yeshua:

"The Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon":

" Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance":

Holy crap, I can't walk away for 8 hours without the thread going so far off topic I can't begin to figure out where it went. What is wrong with you people?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


WHAT????

Yahshua means "YHWH" saves and He referred to the temple dedicated to YHWH as His Father's house!

He was given that name and he was raised Jewish. It is normal for old theological thought to give birth to new theological thought such as Polytheism giving birth to Monotheism.

By the way, if Jesus followed the old testament why would he be considered blasphemous? He dismissed old testament ideas such as "eye for eye" and "kosher laws" saying "turn other cheek" and "what goes in mouth can't defile only what comes out"....

He even said that their father (Yahweh) is Satan/ devil...